zlacker

> I'm convinced that it was nothing less than business collusion.

Wonder if it’s “not illegal” if it’s done in international waters.

>>mathge+(OP)
> Wonder if it’s “not illegal” if it’s done in international waters.

I didn't ask. As I understand it, it's less about legality and more about plausible deniability; on a "party boat" with plenty of other public people to make it cheaper than renting a whole boat, plus the week for the cruise and time to relax -- seems plausible that these people "just happened" to book the same boat at the same time at peak tourist season and decide to throw a "private party". I should have asked more questions, but there were plenty of other people to chat up.

>>inetkn+z
It's very common for "million dollar clubs" (or whatever) to have a cruise or some other perk for top-performing sales reps.

>>mathge+(OP)
No, because jurisdiction of the competition authority will still be based on the market activity (or place of registration etc.) of the companies colluding, not on the physical location of the colluding/anti-competitive activity itself. While such conspirative theatre may decrease the risks of discovery, collusions usually come to light by one participant notifying the authority in exchange for immunity or decreased fines.

>>mathge+(OP)
That argument mostly only works if you are the government, it seems.